Russo v. Griffin
510 A.2d 436 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of professional care for attorneys in a legal malpractice action is not limited to the standard in the attorney's specific locality, but is the standard of care of a reasonable, careful, and prudent lawyer practicing within the entire state jurisdiction.
Facts:
- In 1975, brothers Anthony (Tony) and Francis (Frank) Russo hired attorney H. Vaughn Griffin, Jr. to incorporate their family paving business, J. A. Russo Paving, Inc.
- Griffin continued to represent the corporation after its formation.
- In 1978, Frank decided to sell his interest in the corporation to his brother, Tony.
- Griffin represented the parties during this intra-family buyout transaction.
- During the transaction, Griffin structured the deal to protect the selling brother, Frank, but did not advise the corporation or the buying brother, Tony, about the desirability or legal implications of obtaining a covenant not to compete.
- Three months after the sale was completed, Frank Russo opened a new paving business in the same town, directly competing with J. A. Russo Paving, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- J. A. Russo Paving, Inc. sued its former attorney, H. Vaughn Griffin, Jr., and his firm in the Vermont superior court (trial court) for legal malpractice.
- At trial, both sides presented expert testimony on the standard of care, with plaintiff's experts from Burlington and defendant's experts from Rutland.
- The trial court applied a 'locality rule' standard, finding the relevant standard of care was that of the Rutland area.
- Based on that local standard, the trial court found in favor of the defendants, Griffin and his firm, and entered judgment on their behalf.
- Plaintiff, J. A. Russo Paving, Inc., appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the standard of care for determining attorney malpractice in Vermont limited to the professional customs and practices of the local community where the attorney practices?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
No. The appropriate standard of care for an attorney is not limited by locality but extends to the entire jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed. The so-called 'locality rule' is an outdated concept developed to protect rural practitioners when significant disparities in education and resources existed. Modern standardization in legal education, bar admissions, and technology has rendered the locality rule obsolete, as it can immunize incompetent sole practitioners and promote a 'conspiracy of silence.' The court holds that the standard is 'that degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in this jurisdiction,' meaning the state of Vermont. The trial court's application of a Rutland-area standard was a prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Concurring - Hayes, J.
No. The author agrees with the majority's rejection of the locality rule, stating that two incompetent lawyers in a small town cannot set a standard of inferiority. However, he disagrees with adopting a state-level standard, arguing instead for a national standard of care. Given that legal education, the multistate bar exam, and continuing legal education are national in scope, the standard for professional conduct should also be national. Adopting a state-specific standard suggests that what constitutes negligence might vary between states, which could lower public confidence in the legal profession.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant modernization of legal malpractice standards in Vermont by abolishing the archaic 'locality rule.' It aligns the legal profession with trends in other professional fields, like medicine, which have moved away from localized standards of care. By establishing a statewide standard, the court promotes uniformity and accountability, ensuring that clients receive a consistent level of competence regardless of their location within the state. The concurrence foreshadows a future debate about whether even a statewide standard is sufficient, suggesting an eventual move toward a national standard for all attorneys.
Unlock the full brief for Russo v. Griffin